In case people don't go back and read the entire context of what he wrote, I'll put it here right next to your post so people can see what he said in total:

Quote:

As for how I would bring 47 million people into the system, I would not. I would only do something to help those who truly could not afford health insurance. All the rest can fend for themselves. For a percentage, they make a choice not get health care. Others do not have health insurance for a short time when they are in between jobs and others feel they are indestructible and do not need health insurance. Why force them in?

No, that was entirely in context. If you are having trouble understanding the context, try reading the entire thing together with the words "truly needy." And who are these "truly needy?" We don't know, but we do know they do not include the 47 million people who are already locked out of the health care market. They apparently don't need health care. No, this is just another pretend solution from someone who doesn't actually give a tinker's fart. They wave around non-solutions like tort reform and pretend like this will make a difference, when it's well known that this would be an insignificant change -- which is all they are for. They are know how bad it looks to be uncaring, but that's what they are in reality, so they give us a steady diet of drivel and nonsense that only looks like caring, to the undiscriminating eye.

With this matter, either you know, understand and care -- or you don't. It pretty much comes to down to that.

screener's quote of NoahJ was clear not "entirely in context" and that is obvious.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

If you are having trouble understanding the context, try reading the entire thing together with the words "truly needy." And who are these "truly needy?" We don't know, but we do know they do not include the 47 million people who are already locked out of the health care market. They apparently don't need health care. No, this is just another pretend solution from someone who doesn't actually give a tinker's fart. They wave around non-solutions like tort reform and pretend like this will make a difference, when it's well known that this would be an insignificant change -- which is all they are for. They are know how bad it looks to be uncaring, but that's what they are in reality, so they give us a steady diet of drivel and nonsense that only looks like caring, to the undiscriminating eye.

With this matter, either you know, understand and care -- or you don't. It pretty much comes to down to that.

You seem to be accusing people that do not agree with your analysis of the situation and have not arrived at the same conclusions that you have as either no knowing or not caring. This is false and dismissive.

When reformers talk about our healthcare system, they repeatedly cite the number of uninsured Americans as one of the primary problems in need of a solution. In 2006, the Census Bureau estimates of the uninsured reached 47 million, representing approximately 16 percent of the population. While this number has dominated nearly all healthcare policy debates, it unfortunately remains a relatively coarse measurement and provides little substantive information about the uninsured that can be used to craft effective policy solutions. For example, it is often assumed—without any quantitative evidence—that nearly all of these uninsured individuals lack coverage because they are unable to afford it. Furthermore, the lack of health insurance is often equated with a lack of healthcare, despite the fact that individuals without coverage often receive medical services from a wide variety of sources within the healthcare system. As the country moves closer to a serious debate over healthcare reform, whether these assumptions reflect reality will make a significant difference to the policy outcome. Unless we have a better understanding of the characteristics of the uninsured population, the solutions proposed may, in practice, be poorly targeted and ultimately ineffective.

That last underlined item is important. Because the ultimate goal is not health insurance but health care. People are not seeing the forest for the trees on this.

The media claim that there are 40 million to 50 million uninsured Americans and use that statistic to bolster calls for universal government-run insurance coverage. The inaccuracy has been repeated by print and broadcast journalists for years, but the true extent of the uninsured “crisis” is much smaller than those reports let on.

Myth: There are between 40 million and 50 million uninsured Americans. President Obama referred to “46 million uninsured Americans” in May 2009.

Fact: Anyone who reports that there are more than 46 million uninsured is exaggerating since the Census Bureau puts the number of uninsured at 45,657,000 people.

Fact: Nearly 10 million (9.7) of the 45.7 million uninsured are “not a citizen.” That makes every media claim of uninsured Americans higher than 35.9 million is wrong.

Myth: The 40 million to 50 million uninsured cannot afford health insurance.

Fact: More than 17 million of the uninsured make at least $50,000 per year (the median household income of $50,233) – 8.4 million make $50,000 to $74,999 per year and 9.1 million make $75,000 or higher. Two economists working at the National Bureau of Economic Research concluded that 25 to 75 percent of those who do not purchase health insurance coverage “could afford to do so.”

Myth: The 40 million to 50 million uninsured do not get health care.

Fact: The National Center for Policy Analysis estimates that uninsured people get about $1,500 of free health care per year, or $6,000 per family of four.

Fact: An Urban Institute study found that 25 percent of the uninsured already qualify for government health insurance programs.

Myth: People will remain uninsured without government assistance.

Fact: The Congressional Budget Office says that 45 percent of the uninsured will be insured within four months. CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin also said that the frequent claim of 40+ million Americans lacking insurance is an “incomplete and potentially misleading picture of the uninsured population.”

Fact: Liberal non-profit Kaiser Family Foundation put the number of uninsured Americans who do not qualify for government programs and make less than $50,000 a year between 8.2 million and 13.9 million. (The 8.2 million figure includes only those uninsured for two years or more.)

Fact: CBO analysis found that 36 million people would remain uninsured even if the Senate’s $1.6 trillion health care plan is passed.

screener's quote of NoahJ was clear not "entirely in context" and that is obvious.

You seem to be accusing people that do not agree with your analysis of the situation and have not arrived at the same conclusions that you have as either no knowing or not caring. This is false and dismissive.

You seem to be accusing people that do not agree with your analysis of the situation and have not arrived at the same conclusions that you have as either no knowing or not caring. This is false and dismissive.

No, I am accusing people who don't know or care of not knowing or caring. When I ask how they plan to get (choose your number) of uninsured Americans into the health care system, and they have no answer whatsoever, then I think it's a fair presumption that they don't care. When they trot out shibboleths like tort reform (a good idea perhaps, but according to the CBO, a potential savings of just 0.2%), then I can say fairly that they either don't know how little difference that will make, or don't care. When I ask how they plan to stop the insurance companies from discriminating against people with illnesses, or how to help people in the individual insurance market afford coverage, and they don't have any answers, then either they don't know or don't care. And so on.

The problem is that this not knowing and not caring is supported by a massive infrastructure of ideological disinformation. A huge comfort zone has been created for the not knowing and not caring. It's a damn shame, and I'm sorry if I don't play along. At least some of us know that these problems are very real.

I realize that the 47 million uninsured is a rough number. A substantial percentage of the uninsured are actually eligible for Medicaid but are not enrolled. So I guess what we're suggesting is getting more people onto a government program. Okay, so who pays for that?

Also, if you want to lead us down a garden path that the problem is not health insurance but health care, I'll say okay -- show me how you deliver care without insurance. Are you suggesting a completely socialized system, because that's the only form of health care I know about without heath insurance.

BTW, policial cartoons are not facts and they are not arguments. The one you posted is just a part of that not knowing and not caring comfort zone. So pardon me if I'm unimpressed.

No, I am accusing people who don't know or care of not knowing or caring. When I ask how they plan to get (choose your number) of uninsured Americans into the health care system, and they have no answer whatsoever, then I think it's a fair presumption that they don't care.

But you are begging the question here (actually on multiple points):

1. You are assuming that if someone doesn't have an immediate answer for you doesn't care or know (at least to your satisfaction).
2. You are assuming that uninsured Americans* are not in the health care system.

*You should be aware when tossing around that 47 million figure that it includes a substantial number of illegal immigrants and not people who have properly and legally entered the country and obtained valid U.S. citizenship.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

The problem is that this not knowing and not caring is supported by a massive infrastructure of ideological disinformation. A huge comfort zone has been created for the not knowing and not caring. It's a damn shame, and I'm sorry if I don't play along. At least some of us know that these problems are very real.

The same could very well be said like this:

The problem is that the belief that good intentions can trump economic reality is supported by a massive infrastructure of ideological disinformation. A huge comfort zone has been created for those with good intentions but no understanding of the economic factors involved. It's a damn shame, and I'm sorry if I don't play along. At least some of us know economic factors involved are very real and wish to move beyond mere good intentions and wishful thinking about how to solve these problems properly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

Also, if you want to lead us down a garden path that the problem is not health insurance but health care, I'll say okay -- show me how you deliver care without insurance.

It's not a garden path, it is a statement of fact. The reality at the present time is that some health care is so expensive and also necessary that the only way to guard against financial ruin is through insurance of some form. However, these two issues are often and inappropriately conflated such that they are viewed as one and the same thing. They are not. It is a subtle but vitally important point. The fact is that much of health care products and services have become enormously expensive because of 3rd party payer problem and the way health care payments are handled effectively creating excessive demand for these goods and services thus driving the prices up. Secondly, not all services and products are medically necessary but resources are being used to provide them and nearly zero cost to most customers/patients which, again creates excessive demand for these goods and services thus driving the prices up.

Open up competition for health care products, services and insurance and these will all become very affordable for 99% of the people. Then we can deal with the remaining 1% in other ways.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

Are you suggesting a completely socialized system, because that's the only form of health care I know about without heath insurance.

Absolutely, positively not!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

BTW, policial cartoons are not facts and they are not arguments. The one you posted is just a part of that not knowing and not caring comfort zone*. So pardon me if I'm unimpressed.

BTW...I only posted that for people who refuse to read. I posted other things which support the same basic break downs. Furthermore, policial cartoons can contain facts (as the one I posted claims to). If you believe the facts in the cartoon are false, then show us how and why. Anything less is simply an ad hominem.

*Please stop implying that those (like me) who don't happen to forfeit to your view of this matter do not care or do not know. It is false and insulting (however comforting it might be to you to believe it).

I'm sorry you feel insulted, but if the shoe fits, you must wear it. All of what you have stated above is devoid of one single thing which could even remotely be mistaken for a solution. The entire drift of your argument is that health care is not really in crisis, so go away and shut up about this already. The vague and completely unsupported assertion that "more competition" would make health care "very affordable for 99% of the people" is classic misdirection. It might even work on some people.

I sincerely believe that the people (especially in Congress) who oppose all reform that would make a difference to people who actually exist on the face of this planet, should just confess that they really think nothing much needs to be done. Then allow the debate to proceed from the point from where we can clearly see who gets it and who does not. The opposition to reform should stop trying to misdirect us into believing that they care, if in fact they are prepared to do absolutely nothing of substance.

Don't make the mistake of believing that I take any comfort in the amount of utter crap being spewed in opposition to health care reform. I find it disgusting to discover how few people are prepared to be honest about what they really believe.

All of what you have stated above is devoid of one single thing which could even remotely be mistaken for a solution.

I'm not sure if the fact that you missed this:

Quote:

Open up competition for health care products, services and insurance

Means that you don't care or can't read.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

The entire drift of your argument is that health care is not really in crisis

I guess it must be cannot read. Or reads what you want to into what I've said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

The vague and completely unsupported assertion that "more competition" would make health care "very affordable for 99% of the people" is classic misdirection. It might even work on some people.

I'll welcome your explanation for how this is "classic misdirection". Ironically, that's exactly what you just did.

I propose a solution which involves allowing greater market competition in these markets for health care products, services and insurance which is an approach that has proven itself time and time again to produce an amazing variety of goods and services at wide array of prices and quality levels to a wide array of customers in other markets. The specifics? Get the government completely out of health care and health insurance (except for the normal, valid role of contract enforcement, private property protection, adjudication for theft, fraud, trespass and coercion). Level the playing field (e.g., tax treatment) between employer provided health insurance and individually purchased health insurance.

We can get into even more specifics if you like. But, frankly, this is about as specific as anyone supporting the current proposals has gotten:

I sincerely believe that the people (especially in Congress) who oppose all reform that would make a difference to people who actually exist on the face of this planet, should just confess that they really think nothing much needs to be done.

Then allow the debate to proceed from the point from where we can clearly see who gets it and who does not.

Again, the thinly veiled implication that those who "get it" are those who agree with your assessment of the whole situation (including the proposed solutions) and those who don't "get it" are those who don't agree with your assessment or don't support the current proposals for "reform".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

The opposition to reform should stop trying to misdirect us into believing that they care, if in fact they are prepared to do absolutely nothing of substance.

And people like yourself should quit trying to misdirect debate by accusing those who don't agree with you or don't agree with the current proposal of not caring and not knowing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

Don't make the mistake of believing that I take any comfort in the amount of utter crap being spewed in opposition to health care reform. I find it disgusting to discover how few people are prepared to be honest about what they really believe.

What I think you take comfort in is believing that people who do not agree with you, with your analysis of the situation and what you think must be done to solve the problems don't care, don't know anything and aren't being honest.

Completely off base on all accounts. I don't give a hoot if anyone agrees or disagrees with me; I am prepared to discuss any serious approaches or options. I just believe in flushing out people who propose meaningless "solutions" in order to paper over the fact that they don't recognize the problems real people face, and really don't want to change anything. I'm afraid your "solution" of perfecting the health care economy such that everyone (or practically everyone) is magically served is one of these mythical solutions. You may not have noticed, but health care is not really a commodity. Many aspects of health care simply do not respond in the way other markets do, so even if it was possible to create a perfect health care market for products (and good luck with that) many people will still not be served. Insurance companies are still not going to want to offer coverage to sick people, for one example. Market forces alone simply cannot be expected to make this happen.

Completely off base on all accounts. I don't give a hoot if anyone agrees or disagrees with me; I am prepared to discuss any serious approaches or options. I just believe in flushing out people who propose meaningless "solutions" in order to paper over the fact that they don't recognize the problems real people face, and really don't want to change anything.

What is a "meaningful" solution to you? Is mine "meaningless"? Do you get to decide?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

I'm afraid your "solution" of perfecting the health care economy such that everyone (or practically everyone) is magically served is one of these mythical solutions.

I figured as much. You actually aren't serious or "prepared to discuss any serious approaches or options".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

Many aspects of health care simply do not respond in the way other markets do,

I will welcome your proof of this claim.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

so even if it was possible to create a perfect health care market for products (and good luck with that) many people will still not be served.

I will welcome your proof of this claim (including a definition of "many" in this claim).

4. Do you really think other countries' single payer healthcare systems have worked?

It really does work very well here (Canada).

It's not without issues, there are parts of the core structure of budget management and premium transfer that I would change to balance out the constant roller coaster between surplus and shortfall. But the access and quality of care is absolutely top rate, and the government is not involved in healthcare decisions whatsoever. The doctor decides what you get, and the govt insurance plan just pays for it. There are no bean counters looking to find ways to deny coverage, all coverage is completely portable, and the phrase "pre-existing condition" has no meaning.

I have a very hard time understanding why anyone would ever want to live under a system without such guarantees, and it's very confusing to see US TV spots describing our system using situations that are simply unheard of here, trying to make it sound as if they were the norm. They've created this weird strawman that bears little resemblance to what we've got.

What is a "meaningful" solution to you? Is mine "meaningless"? Do you get to decide?

Meaningful, as in, produces actual results. Eliminates insurer discrimination against people with pre-existing medical conditions. Allows people outside of employer-paid plans to buy into group coverage. Eliminates stop-losses so people with serious medical conditions don't have to either die or go bankrupt. Brings most if not all into the system so that they (1) get care when they need it instead of in emergency rooms, and (2) share in the cost. Reducing the growth rate of health care costs so they don't swallow up our economy over the next 20 years. Improves national health results to something closer to first-world status, which would be nice since we already pay way more than any other nation. You know, weird and controversial stuff like that.

But no, instead we'll just wait for the magic hand of the free market to take care of it since that's the ideologically pure way, and it's been working so well so far. I'll take a hip replacement and the quadruple bypass. No, hold the bypass because Dr. B is having a special on bypasses next week with a coupon for a free colonoscopy.

Yeah, right -- if heath care doesn't work that way, then it should. And Peter Pan is my next-door neighbor.

Meaningful, as in, produces actual results. Eliminates insurer discrimination against people with pre-existing medical conditions. Allows people outside of employer-paid plans to buy into group coverage. Eliminates stop-losses so people with serious medical conditions don't have to either die or go bankrupt. Brings most if not all into the system so that they (1) get care when they need it instead of in emergency rooms, and (2) share in the cost. Reducing the growth rate of health care costs so they don't swallow up our economy over the next 20 years. Improves national health results to something closer to first-world status, which would be nice since we already pay way more than any other nation. You know, weird and controversial stuff like that.

You have defined a wide array of preferences that you feel must be achieved in any solution. Fine. The problem is that this is your list of preferences and values. They may or may not match those of everyone or anyone else. Some of these I agree with. Some I personally do not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

and it's been working so well so far. I'll take a hip replacement and the quadruple bypass. No, hold the bypass because Dr. B is having a special on bypasses next week with a coupon for a free colonoscopy.

Actually it has worked incredibly well where it has been allowed to. But it has not been allowed to in the health care and health insurance sectors. That you believe it has demonstrates a lack of knowledge with regard to these market sectors.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

Yeah, right -- if heath care doesn't work that way, then it should. And Peter Pan is my next-door neighbor.

You've made claims that it cannot or will not work but you have not provided any evidence or reasoning of these claims.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

But no, instead we'll just wait for the magic hand of the free market to take care of it...

Your dismissiveness has become tiresome. Maybe one day you'll be ready to have a serious discussion, until then I'm through with you.

You could beg a free market fundamentalist all day and night to tell you how (for instance) a person with a pre-existing medical condition could obtain health insurance if no law required the insurance industry to provide them, but you will never get an answer. Instead you will get some vague reference to the Magic Kingdom we will live in when the Perfect Free Market rules all. If the free market doesn't provide, then for all intents and purposes, the problem does not exist. In the meantime, we can console ourselves with the knowledge that we have sinned against the Free Market, and if people suffer, die, or lose everything, it can't be helped and we have gotten no better than we deserve.

Going back to my original point, people who believe this should confess to it, and stop playing games that fool almost nobody. Then at least we'd know where they stand.

No doubt many more than your dinner friends in France are either laughing at us, or are puzzled by our health care debate. We are faced with a completely practical problem which can be measured objectively, one that calls for a timely and pragmatic solution. Yet ideologues who have nothing to offer but their theories have a seat at the table, and arguably control over the debate. Nyet, nyet, nyet is all they really add to the discussion -- and yet we're supposed to take them seriously, and they have the gall to take offense when some of us refuse. It's at times like this when I lose faith in the ability of our democracy to solve problems. Even a blindly obvious, abundantly measurable, in your face, full-scale crisis like this one can resist problem solving. We've been trying to figure this one out for over 60 years, yet that's still too speedy for some.

You could beg a socialist, collectivist, statist, coercivist, central control and planning fundamentalist all day and night to tell you how exactly they will overcome the basic laws of economics, but you will never get an answer. Instead you will get some vague reference to the Utopia we will live in when the Perfect Government rules all. If the government doesn't solve the problem, then well it is still the fault of the free-market. But we can console ourselves with what our good intentions were, and if people suffer, die, or lose everything, it can't be helped because sometimes to make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs.

When they see medical professionals that donate their time to help 3rd world people being sidetracked treating Americans, then yeah, you'all should be ashamed.

Link?

P.S. I don't claim the American health care system doesn't need fixing. It definitely does. But I do claim that the majority of its problems are a result of too much government intrusion into it already. I also claim that the proposals currently being offered by the powers that be will not fix it and will, in fact, make things worse.

P.S. I don't claim the American health care system doesn't need fixing. It definitely does. But I do claim that the majority of its problems are a result of too much government intrusion into it already. I also claim that the proposals currently being offered by the powers that be will not fix it and will, in fact, make things worse.

What do you mean link, I've posted this numerous times.
Got a bit of SDW in you?

45% now favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. Most (52%) remain opposed.

Only 25% Strongly Support the plan while 42% are Strongly Opposed.

Support for the plan has remained essentially unchanged for months.
...
As has been the case for months, Democrats favor the plan while Republicans and voters not affiliated with either major party are opposed. The latest numbers show support from 81% of those in the president’s party. The plan is opposed by 90% of Republicans and 58% of unaffiliated voters.

Most seem to realize you can't get something for nothing, and a health care overhaul will increase costs and reduce benefits in spite of what they consider hollow assertions to the contrary.

Quote:

Fifty-two percent (52%) of voters now say passage of the legislation will increase health care costs while 53% say it will hurt the quality of care.
...
But most fear that the plan might encourage companies to drop coverage for employees and shift their workers on to the government health care plan. A plurality of Democrats believe this would be good for workers, but most Republicans and unaffiliated voters disagree. As Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, wrote recently in the Wall Street Journal: “The most important fundamental is that 68% of American voters have health insurance coverage they rate good or excellent. … Most of these voters approach the health care reform debate fearing that they have more to lose than to gain.”
...
Virtually all polling shows a plurality or majority opposed to the current plan in Congress. The poll in The Washington Post found just 45% support for the congressional plan among all adults.

If Obama had more solid successes tacked up on his wall of fame and less bling, I'd feel better.

Look, I'm not trying to be a smart ass. I am serious. So let's break this down.

1. There are people who (apparently) are unable to afford some basic health care services. Bad thing.

2. There are two (possibly both apply) probable causes of this:

a. Their incomes are too low. Bad thing.
b. The cost of these services are too high. Bad thing.

3. A generous private organization has risen to this challenge to provide these services for free in this situation. Is this a bad thing? If so, why?

This is the basic outline, right?

First we need to determine:

1. How widespread the problem is.
2. What the causes of 2a and 2b are.

If 2a and/or 2b are solved, then #1 should be solved. Right?

So, assuming that the answer to "How widespread the problem is?" is "No matter how many people it is, we need to fix it." then let's focus on 2a and/or 2b.

Can these problems be solved? 100%? How?

What can be done to reduce the costs of health care products and services?
What can be done to raise the incomes of the people who currently are unable to afford the things they need (health care services other other things)?